I have reviewed the proposals and it is clear to me that they are not well thought out. There are more questions asked than answered. Basically a whole bunch of libraries are being downgraded. They will not have trained librarians ans will be unmanned for lengthy periods. Given that the elderly, children and vulnerable people are often the main user groups for libraries, is this really desirable?

It seems to me that the Barnets Conservative councillors do not have any concept of what a library is, beyond knowing it is a building with a few books in. They do not understand the key role librarians play in the life of the Borough. They don't understand that some elderly people go to the library and read papers as it is the only way they can afford to keep warm and keep up to date with what is happening in the world. They don't understand that many elderly have poor eyesight and need he;p in selecting large print books. They don't understand that refugees and immigrants can be put in touch with services to help them get jobs and educational services. They don't understand that some young people need quiet space for study. I could go on.

Sadly we live in a punishing world. Whilst I am sure you and I are truly fine citizens, there are elements of our society who see a nice, unstaffed public space as an opportunity. If it has children and young people there, you don't have to be a genius to identify what sort of undesirables may see that as an opportunity. If it has vulnerable and elderly people there, sadly soceity has undesirable elements who see these as rich pickings.

The plan also has aspirations to man the library with volunteers. I think this is a good idea, but not if there are no trained staff at all. Barnet has a duty of care to the public. What checks will be conducted? As there are children, the elderly and teh vulnerable, what first aid training?

And the practicalities. How safe is it to have the public in such buildings withoutr staff? Is there a fire risk etc? Who manages the situation if there is a fire or other emergency.

Anyway, I've asked the following questions.

Having reviewed the council proposals for Barnet library's
and given that library's are heavily used by the elderly and children and other
vulnerable people, please can you advise.

A) has the council consulted with its insurers with
regards to the additional public liability risks? If so how has this affected
premiums?

B) with regards to volunteers, what first aid, emergency
procedure and health and safety will be provided and what is the cost?

C) with regards to unmanned operation, what consideration
and risk assessments have been performed to ensure the safety of the public and
the councils assets?

D) have the police and fire service been consulted as to
safety aspects of the proposal

E) what backgrounds checks will be performed on
volunteers and what are the associated costs

F) what additional management oversight is required and
what is the additional costs for managing volunteers

G) what are the additional costs of security for buildings
under the new arrangement. How many extra security staff will be employed by
the council or its contractors

H) what steps are being taken to ensure that substance
abuse and other criminal activities are not undertaken in unmanned libraries

Often when you add up all the costs, you actually don't save very much. Barnet has a history of cocking up schemes and you end up with a worse service at a greater cost. I am sure that our councillors don't do this on purpose, they just lack the analytic and business skills to identify costs and risks. We saw a small example of this yesterday when BAPS member Barbara Jacobson tried to submit a question for the committee and was told that she was too late to do this, due to an obscure rule change. Myself and several other members of the public emailed the Council Leader, Richard Cornelius and asked him to apply common sense. Happily he realised that this was a completely needless row and Barbara has been allowed to ask her question. It was yet another example of how the Council doesn't really see itself as being there to serve the public.

Barnet Council resource links

Rog T's Music Links

Followers

About Me

Dyslexic punk rock guitarist, studio owner and author Barnet Eye blog, proprieter of Mill Hill Music Complex Studios. Born and raised in the London Borough of Barnet. Loves loud music, beer,curry and football and occasionally strings two coherent sentences together.
Prospective Lib Dem Candidate for Mill Hill Ward.
This blog is written and published by Roger Tichborne, 29 Millway, London, NW7 3QS

If you have received a penalty fare at a Thameslink Station and you sent an appeal off to the Independent Penalty Fare Appeals Service, did you notice that this says at the bottom of the letter you got back "London and South Eastern Railways T/A IPFAS". In other words, it's not independent, it's an arm of a train company. They actually run Blackfriars station.

I believe that it is a scandal that this service calls itself independent, but there is no right of appeal and it's run by one of the train operators. I believe that the penalty ticket scheme is a scam to generate extra profits for these companies.

A little tool to help you defeat the invisible men

I've added an IP address lookup tool. If you get an email or you have a stats counter on your blog, you can see who it is and where they came from using this. If you've got an email from someone, view the email. Click on File, then click on properties, then click on details. Now click on message source

You will see some text as follows :-X-Originating-IP: [1.2.3.4]

Where I've put 1.2.3.4, cut and paste this number into the IP lookup and hey presto, you know where the email came from.

If it says it's from your bank, but the IP address is Freds chipshop, you know it's a scam.

There was an error in this gadget

You must have a browser that supports iframes to view the BBC weather forecast